View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
July 18, 2012
Re: Rust updates
Am Tue, 17 Jul 2012 21:39:33 +0200
schrieb "SomeDude" <lovelydear@mailmetrash.com>:

> On Friday, 13 July 2012 at 14:58:57 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> > A blog post about one of the Rust pointers, the "borrowed" ones:
> >
> > http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2012/07/10/borrowed-pointer-tutorial/
> >
> > Bye,
> > bearophile
> 
> Rust is a much more interesting language than Go. At least they 
> are taking some innovative paths and that's good.

The irony is: "Rust intentionally does not include any novel or untested ideas." - Wikipedia

-- 
Marco
July 20, 2012
Re: Rust updates
On Sunday, 8 July 2012 at 13:49:50 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> So I've taken another look at the Rust tutorial:
> http://dl.rust-lang.org/doc/tutorial.html

Does it handle angle brackets well?
December 18, 2012
Re: Rust updates
> Rust designers seems to love really short keywords, this is in 
> my opinion a bit silly. On the other hand in D you have 
> keywords like "immutable" that are rather long to type. So I 
> prefer a mid way between those two.

They aren't silly, they're consistent. We have int, char, auto,
they have fn, var, and val which are common these days, why not
mut, pub, and priv? What is silly are the objections, such as
someone saying that it's like limiting the length of identifiers.
It's obviously NOTHING like that.

> Rust supports several types of pointers. The simplest is the 
> unsafe pointer, written *T, which is a completely unchecked 
> pointer type only used in unsafe code (and thus, in typical 
> Rust code, very rarely).

It's &T, and it has nothing to do with unsafety.
December 18, 2012
Re: Rust updates
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 07:36:26 UTC, Marcel wrote:
>> Rust designers seems to love really short keywords, this is in 
>> my opinion a bit silly. On the other hand in D you have 
>> keywords like "immutable" that are rather long to type. So I 
>> prefer a mid way between those two.
>
> They aren't silly, they're consistent. We have int, char, auto,
> they have fn, var, and val which are common these days, why not
> mut, pub, and priv? What is silly are the objections, such as
> someone saying that it's like limiting the length of 
> identifiers.
> It's obviously NOTHING like that.
>
>> Rust supports several types of pointers. The simplest is the 
>> unsafe pointer, written *T, which is a completely unchecked 
>> pointer type only used in unsafe code (and thus, in typical 
>> Rust code, very rarely).
>
> It's &T, and it has nothing to do with unsafety.

Those are silly as well. Why be consistent with the wrong choice?
I really don't want to see pubs scattered around my code as my 
manager used to say - don't drink and code.

I really like Rust's semantics and the way it progresses but 
there is really no valid nor sane argument for an APL inspired 
syntax. Syntax is meant for human consumption and should be 
designed accordingly. That's one of the main goals of a 
programming language, otherwise we all would just program 
straight in assembly. After all, assembly op codes and numeric 
addresses are much shorter than the equivalent human readable 
identifiers and function names.
December 18, 2012
Re: Rust updates
Marcel:

>> Rust designers seems to love really short keywords, this is in 
>> my opinion a bit silly. On the other hand in D you have 
>> keywords like "immutable" that are rather long to type. So I 
>> prefer a mid way between those two.
>
> They aren't silly, they're consistent. We have int, char, auto,
> they have fn, var, and val which are common these days, why not
> mut, pub, and priv?

They are a bad design choice. Using very shortened 
identifiers/names is acceptable only when they are very common 
(time ago I even suggested in D to use "str" as in Python, 
instead of "string"). "mut", "pub", and "priv" optimize the wrong 
thing.

There are of cases where D goes too much far (like 
"std.random.randomShuffle" or "schwartSort" in Phobos, or 
"immutable" among the keywords) but in general the naming choice 
of D is better than Rust.


>> Rust supports several types of pointers. The simplest is the 
>> unsafe pointer, written *T, which is a completely unchecked 
>> pointer type only used in unsafe code (and thus, in typical 
>> Rust code, very rarely).

(This wasn't a quotation from me)

Bye
bearophile
December 18, 2012
Re: Rust updates
On 12/18/2012 4:35 AM, bearophile wrote:
> in general the
> naming choice of D is better than Rust.

A red letter day for D! Bearophile says that D does something better than some 
other language!

:-)
Next ›   Last »
3 4 5 6 7
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home